- 1 Archive 2008
- 2 Archive 2009
- 3 Archive 2010
- 4 Archive 2011
- 5 Archive 2012
- 6 Obama's Religion
- 7 User:Wschact
- 8 Backdoor spending authority
- 9 Fabulous blocks and reverts
- 10 Liberal myths
- 11 friendly questions
- 12 Common Core
- 13 speedy
- 14 featured essay on main page
- 15 Project
- 16 The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia
- 17 Message posted to Wschact's talk page
- 18 Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles
- 19 Upload a picture "Send a gun to defend a British home.jpg"?
- 20 Regarding Firearms Articles and Need for Pictures
- 21 Uploading request
- 22 Cquote - don't delete.
- 23 Vandal
- 24 Upload request.
- 25 Vandal
The polls varied between 10% and 18%, so "1 in 4" is not an accurate summary. If you don't like my revision, we can go back to my first phrasing of the sentence, but I think this last one is better. Thanks, Wschact 23:08, 4 January 2013 (EST)
It is accurate (as nearly 20% is 1 in 5)   and I oppose the insertion of rumor. We don't have his baptism records and Obama can't be trusted with what he says. It's not a rumor, it's not fact, it is an unknown assumption. Replacing a sentence somebody just added reeks of edit war incivility. --Jpatt 23:18, 4 January 2013 (EST)
- In addition to the polling, the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is Muslim. Given how the liberal media censor any discussion of this issue. the polling data on it is even more remarkable.--Andy Schlafly 23:47, 4 January 2013 (EST)
- Thank you for the feedback. From an editorial viewpoint, I am trying to maintain flow. Obama's quotation uses the phrase "rumors that have been over the Internet" and "score political points". I think that he is referring to the 2007 email blasts that started this. (I personally believe that such an effort would have come from a prospective Democratic primary opponent rather than from a true conservative.) So the sentence following the quote should stick with "rumor" rather than inject "best efforts of Obama's supporters" without any predicate. As for the polling, I believe the more polling references provided in the article, the better. I am pleased that the "one in four" language was changed. However, the bottom line is that if we are going to "let the readers decide", we should drop phrases like "Starting in 2007, unidentified people revealed that he was most likely a Muslim." I believe that the article can be written in a way that leaves CP without answering the question one way or the other. This issue is not important to me, but as the public face of CP, Aschlafly could take a serious hit in his personal reputation if this page receives widespread media attention in its current form. The folks that funded the 2007 email effort did not leave fingerprints, but it would be ironic if Aschlafly picked up the smoldering gun with his bare hands just in time to be identified as the proponent of the issue. Wschact 03:19, 6 January 2013 (EST)
- I wouldn't concern yourself about Aschlafly's reputation. Obama's quotation is more subterfuge. Obama could have specifically put the questions about his faith to rest, just as he could have come clean on his birth certificate. He prefers mystery that surrounds his life in order to hit his critics on demand. Despite the best efforts of Obama supporters is accurate. They don't want anybody to question Obama's words on the matter. We are supposed to take his word as his bond. I don't trust liars.--Jpatt 13:49, 6 January 2013 (EST)
brenden 20:14, 5 January 2013 (EST)
ok --Jpatt 20:33, 5 January 2013 (EST)
Sorry to bother you again, but I hope you are aware that you added Chuck Hagel to the Obama's Religion a second time. It was already at the top of the list. Perhaps you may want to consolidate. Thanks, Wschact 23:33, 7 January 2013 (EST)
I am not clear as to what was the concern with this edit. I believe the audience and the fact that he made the speech during the middle of his first term as President is important to the context. Providing a link to the full text is also helpful to the readers. I also believe that the reference to Muslim teaching against same sex marriage is important to the readers. A home schooled student should learn that a wide variety of religions teach against same sex marriage. Your wording implies that Muslims approve of same sex marriage, when there is widespread opposition. Thanks, Wschact 05:36, 8 January 2013 (EST)
- I see that you care deeply for Obama's religion. I don't know why you fear my examples so much that you have to make changes. Obama claims to be a Christian while attacking the Christian faith. You want to make it as Obama is attacking the Christian and Muslim faith. No Muslim religious people are ordered to perform same-sex marriage against their beliefs. CAIR has not made any complaints against Obama's gay policy. Muslims overwhelming voted for Obama in '12 just as they did in '08 despite his gay marriage stance. What you deem important is just another attempt to water-down my examples. Do me a favor, I don't need you to correct my work. You want to edit the other entries, go ahead. Leave my work alone. --Jpatt 06:34, 8 January 2013 (EST)
- Hear, hear, JPatt! This fellow Wschact is not to be trusted--I've been watching his work.--ThomJ 18:26, 20 January 2013 (EST)
- He has gone into retirement.--Jpatt 18:36, 20 January 2013 (EST)
Can you unprotect Backdoor spending authority? I'm still working on it. Also, User:Wschact may have some positive contributions to it. He seems knowledge on a few difficult and complicated (parliamentary and budget) processes. OscarO 21:09, 10 January 2013 (EST)
Fabulous blocks and reverts
Fabulous blocks and reverts!--Andy Schlafly 12:29, 5 March 2013 (EST)
- Thanks, anytime.--Jpatt 21:09, 5 March 2013 (EST)
I trust that you will be adding sources for the items I pointed out. As an alternative, I would suggest changing the page title to Liberal beliefs so that we don't have to worry about disproving each and every one of the items on the list (many of which may well be true). GregG 20:28, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
How much has conservatism grown on the internet? In the Anglosphere, is conservatism growing faster relative to liberal internet political content? How fast is it currently growing?
I thought you might have some insight on these matters.
Lastly, since the world has a lot of places in the developing world with traditional values, I am guessing that social conservatism is growing globally faster than liberalism on the internet. Conservative 17:18, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
- idk. --Jpatt 18:36, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
- i do know that conservative news sites have blown past their liberal counterparts; breitbart, drudge, daily caller --Jpatt 18:38, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
I write this in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. It may sound hostile, given that I disagree with Conservapedia's apparent stance regarding Common Core, but I don't mean to be hostile.
If you were to look around on the web for all the examples of massive stupidity and inappropriateness in things schoolteachers do, and put them into the Essay:Common Core article, you would run out of disk space on Conservapedia's server. There's just no limit to human stupidity, and there's no point putting examples of stupidity into the Common Core article unless they relate to the Common Core standards.
I looked around at your examples. The "Ruby and the hairclip" article came from this article, select "inference for 500". It's the most pathetic thing I've seen on the internet in quite a while. The https://jeopardylabs.com website is truly awful, and the "be sure your answer is in the form of a question" garbage is just incredible. They are certainly not Alex Trebek! It's a web site where you can make your own stupid Jeopardy game thing, and then upload it so others can see it. That a teacher downloaded such a thing for his or her class is utterly pathetic in many ways. But the website has nothing to do with Common Core!
As far as I can tell from a Google search, the "Peter and Patty" story was from some kind of book titled "Daily Warm-ups, Reading, Grade 3" by Shelle Russell. You can find it on Amazon here. Unbelievably stupid. (By the way, the story was pretty much cribbed from Hansel and Gretel; the author is incredibly lazy, as well as stupid.) That a 3rd grade teacher on Long Island went to this book for material is unbelievable. But, once again, it has nothing to do with Common Core.
You and I can find stupid things that teachers do until we are blue in the face. There's already a Conservapedia page on Public_school that has this stuff.
As far as your math example from yesterday, the news article says it's from Common Core, but I'm not convinced. I need to look around some more. I Googled "breaking apart numbers", and it seems to be a real thing. As a math major, I find it appalling that people would teach it that way. It's true that you can mentally add 105+79 by saying that 79 is 1 less than 80, and 105+80 is obviously 185, so 105+79=184. I think that's what the method is about, but the example is an incredibly inappropriate one. I can't figure out what he's doing. The article you cited, says it's a common core example, giving this item by Rich Hoffmann. But it gives no evidence that that example came from Common Core; it just said that it came from a 3rd grade workbook, with no further information. It may be that Common Core does teach the "breaking apart" method, but I hope it's more like my 105+79 example rather than the garbage from that workbook.
I haven't checked out the "Constitution Day" thing in detail, but I think the fundamental point, that we have a great deal of freedom because of the Constitution, and that America is special because of this, is appropriate. It's what I was taught in school. I don't agree with their claim that the Constitution is not a piece of paper. At the time that it was signed, on September 17, 1787, it was a piece of paper. Well, quite a few pages. And it most certainly is our written plan.
I need to do more Googling. :-)
SamHB 22:08, 7 October 2013 (EDT)
- We're good SamHB, you don't have to worry about offending me. True, much negative can be said about education in America. The reason I keep adding to Common Core is to bring visibility to the topic, which most are unaware unless they have kids in public schools. I feel it needs to be discredited at every turn. If I provided misleading information, feel free to remove without fear of being blocked. RINO Jeb Bush is a big fan of Common Core. The NEA is a big supporter of Common Core. Both are an enemy of conservatives. So we may not agree 100% but at least you understand my motives.
featured essay on main page
I featured your new essay on the main page. It contained a number of pieces of information that I was unaware of. Thanks for writing it. 07:48, 8 November 2014 (EST)
Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.
The topic could be decided by the editors participating.
The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia
I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous User:Wschact, you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than anything I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry User:Aschlafly, User:Conservative and User:Jpatt, but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 3 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were User:Wschact or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)
Message posted to Wschact's talk page
TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) creates a lot of content and his work is appreciated by the Admin community and has their full support. Wschact your content is appreciated also.
Second, I contacted TAR about various matters such as: not creating additional ayurvedic medicine articles at this time, avoiding creating large "see also" sections, avoiding creating a lot of red links (AlanE was irked by this), and not creating a lot of stub articles. TAR agreed to do all these things.
Third, Karajou, JPatt and I feel you are hounding TAR. This must immediately stop. Please cease and desist doing this. It is also suspected that you may have others using your account to help you hound TAR. If true, this is unacceptable.
Fourth, considering that TAR has agreed to not create additional ayurvedic medicine articles which seems to have been the spark to start this wiki war, you need to meet him half way and stop hounding him. If you don't Karajou, JPatt and I will consult with the owner of CP and make sure that you do stop hounding him.
Again, your content is appreciated and so is your input. Nonetheless, your behavior towards TAR must stop. It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Conservative 09:36, 11 January 2015 (EST)
Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles
Dear User:Jpatt and User:Karajou, I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since User:Conservative told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.
Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from Category:Survivalism and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. The Survival Blog articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles TheAmericanRedoubt 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)
In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.
Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.
In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. TheAmericanRedoubt 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Comments from Others
Upload a picture "Send a gun to defend a British home.jpg"?
Hi Jpatt. Being a fellow gun enthusiast, would you please examine this World War II flyer: https://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/b4/c5/b4c52576c5d83bde287c5f26a41b9ba5.jpg?itok=wQk-jVj6
Perhaps, when you get a chance would please upload this picture to CP under the file name "Send a gun to defend a British home.jpg"? I would like to use it in both an article and an Pro Second Amendment essay such as Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists. Some of my essays (Conservapedia:Essays#Firearms_and_the_Second_Amendment) will be good conservative American Patriot "sheepdog" responses to AugustO and Wshacts deletion of Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment States' rights and other firearms related conservative content. Thanks.
- TheAmericanRedoubt 09:38, 13 January 2015 (EST)
- I am away from my computer during the week and only have cell phone access. I will look into uploading this weekend.--Jpatt 20:54, 13 January 2015 (EST)
I already did it for him. Working on getting him picture upload rights. 21:29, 13 January 2015 (EST)
Regarding Firearms Articles and Need for Pictures
Over the next 12 months I will add at least 100 to 150 articles on firearms: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt#Guns_and_Knives http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Category_tag_compromise_and_TheAmericanRedoubt
You mentioned you would be adding pictures for firearms. If I get authorized by Mr. Schlafly to get picture uploading rights, you will not have to find and upload them. I will do it for you. Thanks for your support. TheAmericanRedoubt 15:39, 14 January 2015 (EST)
Cquote - don't delete.
Jpatt, Template:Cquote is listed in the Category:Speedy deletion candidates category for some unknown reason, and apparently no one intended to place it there either, so please don't delete it! I spoke with Conservative at Conservapedia:Community Portal, and he advised me to alert active admins. Thank you, VargasMilan 20:59, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
There is a certain vandal, . He has not made a single constructive edit. I suggest that we block him as he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I ahve already informed Mr. SchlaflyU.U (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2016 (EST)
I wonder if you could help me with picture uploads for the Potentially_unwanted_program article that I've been working on with DavidB4. The request is at the bottom of the Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests page.